..... no. 1 of 1992 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent defendant from using in any manner in relation to pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, the impugned trademark clofranil or any other distinctly similar trademark so as to infringe the trademark registered in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 bearing no. 233145 under the style of anafranil. alongwith the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application ..... plaintiff must show a strong prima facia case 'something more is needed than a case that will avoid being struck out as frivolous or vexatious.' (vide kerly's law of trademarks and trade names, eleventh edition, para 15.69, page 297). mr. desai submitted that if interim relief is not granted, virtually the suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed at this ..... did not dispute the above proposition of law. he, however, submitted that in durga dutta sharma (supra) the supreme court unequivocally held that in an action for infringement of trademark the burden of proof is always on the plaintiffs and unless the said burden is discharged the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction. the test is whether the term 'anafranil ..... settled principle of law, the burden of proof of infringement is always on the plaintiffs and there is no evidence worth the name that the defendant has committed infringement of trademark of the plaintiffs. according to mr. vakil, the plaintiffs have no prima facie case at all, balance of convenience is also not in their favour inasmuch as admittedly the .....

..... of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, are registered proprietors of a trademark 'disprin' (word per se) in respect of analgestic preparations falling in class 5 of the schedule to the trademark rules. the defendants are also manufacturers of medical and pharmaceutical products and are proprietors of a trademark 'medisprin encotab' for the registration of which they have applied. according to the ..... suffix 'sprin' are in use with reference to indian pharmaceutical guide and that in the instant case the defendants were not merely referring to the marks on the trademark register but to marks of products which are in use as indicated in the said guide. i see considerable force in mr. patel's submission. prima facie, i am satisfied that several ..... remembered, and letters 'me' which are prefixed do not displace 'disprin'. it was, thus, submitted by mr. tulzapurkar that `disprin' is the essential feature of the trademark and the defendants have infringed the mark by selling their product under 'medisprin'; for the letters 'me' prefaced to 'disprin' are insufficient to dissolve the confusion that is bound to arise from associating the ..... the privy council in de cordova and others v. vick chemical cov., reported in 68 r.p.c. 103. the privy council, while considering whether the mark 'karsote vapour rub' was deceptively similar to trademark 'vapo rub', inter alia, held -'it is more useful to observe that in most persons the eye is not an accurate recorder of visual detail and .....

..... by the deputy registrar trademarks in support of his contention that the word weston has been recognized as that belonging to the plaintiff with respect to various items which the plaintiff is manufacturing.10. there ..... parts, cycles and electronic goods ex pw i / i and pw 11/ 2. the company had given a great deal of advertisements in various newspapers regarding their product under the trademark weston. he proved photocopies of those advertisements as ex pw l/3 to pw i /11. he also proved the statement regarding exports made by the plaintiff company including cycles ..... the plaint, if so since when and its effect? 7) whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark weston in relation to cycle and cycle parts? 8) whether the trademarks weston is distinctive in respect of all goods as stated in para 2 of the suit. 9) whether the defendant is using the said trademark weston in relation to cycle ..... . he stated that the plaintiff has a great deal of good-will and reputation in the market. he further stated that if cycles etc. are marketed under the trademark weston, public will consider the same to have been manufactured by the plaintiff.9. my attention has also been drawn by the counsel for the plaintiff to various orders passed .....

..... to believe that they are the plaintiffs goods.' in century traders (supra), the division bench of this court reiterated the law that if there is a likelihood of the offending trademark invading the proprietory right, a case of injunction is made out. the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are on the facts and circumstances of those cases ..... them to prepare a design of the logo for 'citra' and also prepare art work for design for outdoor advertisements. the defendant no.2 reapplied for the registration of the trademark 'citra' on july 25, 1990, which application was duly registered as no. 598686, which application is still pending. the beverage 'citra' was launched in september, 1990 at chandigarh, kanpur and ..... being used by the defendants in respect of the identical goods and there is likelihood of deception and confusion among the public because of the use of the deceptively similar trademark citra by the defendants leading to passing off.(4) the defendants have filed the written statement in the suit. as well as, reply to the application. in their reply, defendants ..... plaintiff, under order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of civil procedure code, for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers etc. from selling the carbonated beverages under the trademark citra and also from advertising the same till the final disposal of the suit.(2) briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is carrying on the .....

..... off action by manufacturer of sophisticated electronic equipment against manufacture of supermarket check-out equipment. the plaintiffs' corporate title was computer vision corporation' and some of its products bore a trademark 'computer vision'. the defendants' corporate title was 'computer vision limited' and they intended as sell products under that name. the section was quia timet. in that case, the question ..... on behalf of the plaintiff. as aforesaid, under clause 18 of the said deed of settlement, the said gajra bevel gears ltd. has been specifically authorised to use the said trademark 'gajra' and logo 'gg' in respect of rear axle assemblies and parts thereof and camshafts manufactured in the factory of the said gajra bevel gears ltd. the said cartons in ..... as against the defendant is not maintainable. mr. mehta has further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not an action on alleged infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark. it is an action in alleged passing off by the defendant by having the words 'garha gears' as part of its corporate name. mr. mehta has further submitted that ' ..... engine, tractor and industrial gears and other allied goods.3. briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is as under :i) the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and owner of the trademark 'gajra' as well as the logo 'gg' used in respect of its manufactured goods and products including rear axle assembly, camshafts and transmission gears.ii) the plaintiff has acquired large .....

..... day (god help us) be delivered, an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing/ processing, selling or offering for sale phenyl under the trademark 'doctor's phenyle' label or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'doctor brand'.2. the facts need not detain us for long. on december 19, 1963 the plaintiff's a firm based in ..... . why did it wait till then? well, there has been some attempt to explain. it is said:'the plaintiff endeavored to find the said product of the defendant under the trademark doctor's phenyle level in different markets of the country but the plaintiff could not lay his hands on such impugned goods of defendant bearing the impugned ..... trademark despite best efforts. the plaintiff also tried to ascertain the business activities of the defendant under the impugned trademark after the service of legal notice dated 14-6-90 and it was found that the defendant stopped using the impugned ..... uttar pradesh, adopted the trademark doctor brand with device of bust portrait of one of the partners in relation to phenyl and since then has been carrying on extensive business throughout the country. on the .....

..... and the out-lets from which they were sold were similar/same. an injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from using trademark 'bajaj' on its products. it was further observed that the defendants intentionally and dishonestly tried to pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff ..... in a passing off action whether the relief asked for is injunction alone or injunction, accounts and damages. if there is a likelihood of the offending trademark invading the proprietary right, a case for injunction is made out. we are fortified in coming to this conclusion by the observations in a bench ..... plaint. the plaintiff having failed to do so, it is not entitled to any injunction. 2) passing off action can be only in regard to a trademark in goods and not for services as in the present case. 3) there can not be any specific right with regard to any name, particularly, ..... its copyright over the said logo from the registrar of companies. by virtue of long and established user coupled with vast publicity given to the said trademark, the plaintiff claims to have acq2uired exclusive rights as proprietor thereof. the word 'prakash' and the logo of the cat with a crown and a ..... 'bajaj' was their family name and on the basis of the said name they were using the same as a trademark on their products. the case of the plaintiff was that the trade name of the plaintiff was widely advertised and had gained wide reputation for a number of years. the goods manufactured by .....

..... different causes of action in effect pertain to tile same transaction. the allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant is selling goods by mislabeling them and by infringing the trademark and copy right of the plaintiff. the sale is alleged to be made in cartons similar to the ones in which the plaintiff had a copy right and it is ..... goods manufactured by the plaintiff namely, locks, meters, cut outs etc. were packed. it was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant was infringing the plaintiff's aforesaid registered trademark and also the copy right which existed in the artistic work on the cartons of the plaintiff. based on this allegation the suit was filed for injunction and damages.(3 ..... a single judge of this court, turn decision is whether a single suit can be filed when it is alleged that there has been an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and copy right. in other words can one suit be filed in relation to two distinct statutory causes of action.(2) the plaintiff in the suit had alleged that the ..... defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and also its copy right. the allegation was that the plaintiff's copy right existed on the labels and carton? in which goods had been packed which carried the .....

..... suit had alleged that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and also its copy right. the allegation was that the plaintiff's copyright existed on the labels and cartons in which goods had been packed ..... court, for decision is whether a single suit can be filed when it is alleged that there has been an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and copy right. in other words can one suit be filed in relation to two distinct statutory causes of action.2. the plaintiff in the ..... by observing that, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, a single suit relating to two different causes of action viz., trademark and copy right is maintainable.8. we now direct that the suit should be listed before the appropriate court for further proceedings on 24th february 1992 ..... same suit several causes of action against the same defendant. there is no prohibition against the causes of action being joined together under the trade and merchandise marks act and the copy right act. a single suit like the present would clearly avoid multiplicity of proceedings and while agreeing with the earlier ..... it was, inter alia, stated that the plaintiff had alleged that two distinct statutory rights had been violated, namely, the right granted by the trade and merchandise marks act and the other right granted by the copy right act. after referring to order 2 rule 6, cpc the learned single judge was of .....

..... formulations pvt. ltd., bombay on the labels/cartons/strips, as entire goods are purchased by the said company and that they do not affix the said goods themselves with the trademark/brand name of the company and are therefore entitled to exemption".11.2 the collector raised the following points in view of which he considered that the order of the ..... it. the commercial mark is that of the dealer, of him who, receiving the product of the manufacturer, sells it to the ..... minn, west publishing co. and referred to page 258 which defines commercial mark." the distinction between a "trademark" and "commercial mark" in the civil law of france is pointed out by pouillet, mare-ques de fabrique, s 6, where he says: "a trade-mark is not a commercial mark. *** the trade-mark is especially or peculiarly the mark of the manufacturer, of him who creates the product, who manufactures ..... agents. the mere mention of word synthiko in rectangular cannot lead to the inference that it is a brand name/trade name and the product cannot have two brand names or trade names affixed on it. he referred to the book on "trademarks and passing-off' by p. narayanan, third edition published by eastern law house, calcutta and referred to page 25 and .....